harrisjosh2711

I once spent an entire playthrough funding myself through mining. Cant do that without money. Ksp2 will lose replay value without currency.

I wish. The orbital velocity of kerbin is pathetic if you enjoy planes. An X-15 rocket plane is almost a space plane on kerbin. On earth, it can just barely reach space.

@linuxgurugamer I made all the 2.5m stuff at request so likely all copy paste, as i never used them. The smaller stuff really should be looked at. As for the other stuff. Make whatever changes you'd like. I likely never decreased the EC from a real solarsystem scale. I was working on many config changes when i left the mod. Including a set for real scale parts i never released. That data didnt get backed up. Harddrive burned out. If you feel like it. The tech levels likely need to be looked over.

Why is the COL staying at the bottom of the pod?

yeah. Something to due with how the pods generates lift is causing the center of lift to remain directly at the bottom of the pod. the fuel tanks arent causing it to drop, therefore the col is in front of the com. dont know why???? Here is a picture of a unmodded game mk1. Both dragon pods are doing the same.....

My previous message was a bit unclear. I think most things performed okay in the stock system when i left it. Many did not agree with the way I accomplished it for the bfr. See atmosphereCurve in module engines. Those that are complaining have not tried landing it. If its not almost empty on fuel, you ARE NOT landing.

The bfr engines are EXTREMELY powerful. Due to its sheer volume, and the fact i wanted it to carry its real max payload, it was extremely difficult to balance in anything other than real solar system, which i generally play. I made the engines very inefficient at low altitude in an attempt to balance. It was either isp, decrease fuel levels, add weight, resize, decrease payload. My logic was, if you dont like fix it......

My apologies. Linuxguru made the dll a seperate download in the dependencies section. Should be good to go. The grid fins wont work without the dll

I havent tested it but if you remove the deployableaerosurface.dll and delete/swap it out it should run fine on anything after 1.3. All thats changed is an update to the cfg's.

Idk man, you sound like someone who has given up hope. You may be correct in your belief that "I have no power", but i will never accept that. Once you lose hope all is truly lost. Since you have allready submitted to the master, take some consolation knowing some of us will continue fighting so that our kids and grandkids might grow up in a better world.

Very well said! Im stealing this.

We could argue back and forth on the topic. Just tell me exactly what "power" take two has? Fact is, they cant exist without YOU, the consumer. There's just too many people like you. You guys are too complacent with your daily cheesebuger and television (modern amenities) to seek real change. Im in no way advocating a boycott of ksp2. Just this attitude "my vote doesnt count" or "i have no power" is a lie you tell yourself to sleep better at night. Further, It hurts those out there grinding for real change, not just you. As a wise man once said- "You gotta play to win"

Hence, why you will forever be powerless. Fortunately for the world, many people are starting to realize they arent "powerless". I would like to point out the creative director of the game felt pressured into engaging the community 1 day after this post was made. This reminds me of the "my vote doesnt count" argument. When 1 million say that, guess what? YOUR VOTE COUNTS.

Dont buy the game. LF will no longer be the only fuel regardless. This "too hard" argument about 1 or 2 fuels...... I imagine you guys said the same when fuel actually became a thing. "Now we need an infinite fuel button to have fun." What i find hilarious when discussing newbies in terms of difficulty, you guys bring up fuels lol, smh. When im thinking newby, planning a 50 year colonisation mission to a distant world seems much more overwhelming. I can decide in 30 seconds which i fuel i want. I may spend all night building a ship only to realize i forgot to put solar panels on my lander, after traveling 50 years. Ohh lord, but a stock KIS would prob be considered "too hard" for a newby lol. Thats after the newby gives up and cheats his ship into orbit because he's spent the past 5 hours trying to design a rocket that is stable and powerful enough to lift the ship, to no avail. I can understand why nany people would prefer to keep solely LF. However, that is not related to difficulty. If you cant take 1 minute to read about the difference between two fuel types, i have no sympathy for you. Further, you should not play this game because multiple new fuel types are confirmed and threfore the game will be "too hard" for you.

This is the entire reason i want the fuel included stock! Stock parts wouldnt technically need to even use them, so long as the resource is defined. Right now community resource pack is your best bet, but some modders create their own resource, which makes them non compatible.

I compared their mass not volume. Volume has no effect in space. But, what is more important than mass? That's a philosophical question. I can agree with this argument. Considering the theoretical fuels, It is certainly arguable that adding multiple "low tech" fuels is redundant. How much of the game is really designed to be played at "low tech"? It seems KSP 2 aim is more towards "future tech". But, if you want to give the "plane designers" & realism guys something new to play with- a few stock fuels would be cool. OP is obviously a plane guy so he wants some fuels and engines. Just to be clear, I feel this argument is likely the dev's logic. Hence, it's very unlikely that any further fuels will be added to the stock game. When I think hard, in terms of beginner in KSP. I think about docking the first time. Man, it took me like 8 hours of failure to learn to dock. The way something moves through space defies all logic we've learned on earth. It is truly something that you just have to experience. How many newbies you think took off towards the mun or duna by flying straight towards it?. Most people don't understand orbital mechanics. Most people do have a basic understanding of fuels. So, if it can be done in an organized manner (which it can be), I don't see any reason why fuels should be too complicating. I personally would suggest that all combustion engines use any "low tech" liquid fuel, thereby eliminating an over abundance of parts. But that doesn't mean modders will follow so subcategories by resource would be best.

I noted that rp-1 was more dense. SpaceX chose rp-1 in both stages because COST. Using another fuel would mean designing an entire new upperstage and engine. Waste of time when you have starship in development, which will use cryogenic fuels. The falcon9 would get a rather large performance boost going LH2 in the upperstage. The fact is, they dont need to. The falcon9 works perfectly fine as is. All they need do is add subcategories to engines. You would never even have to look at metalic hydrogen engines since that added resource is apprently a deal breaker. You are welcome to explain also how we can make metallic hydrogen without hydrogen, the most abundant resource in the universe. Whats your argument for mono. Why isnt it LF? Kinda strange you need to use a different tank that makes your vehicle look... not very aerodynamic, or mismatched. Bunch of parts that arent neccesary. What about Xenon? Ive only used that recource like once or twice. Only works for one engine right?

I am not looking for "complex fuel and motor combinations" neither. I'm not going to say that would stop me from purchasing..... because I'd be lying. By designing the game with multiple fuel types in mind, it simplifies adding fuel by mods and confusing configurations. Simply adding a subcategory to the engines according to fuel type would fix your issue. For some reason people don't like reading the descriptions or searching parts by resource,so I agree the UI could certainly simplify things. And It will be simplified. There is already multiple fuels added to the game and once players install mods "complex fuel and motor combinations" are going to arise quick. I believe the developers spoke of being aware of this issue. does it confuse you guys that there's a mono engine or xenon engine? Or perhaps that some need air intakes? Likely not, because it is stock and designed in a decent fashion to be relatively simple.

Lets do some basic math comparing the mass of 500,000 gallons RP-1 and LH2. RP-1 (Kerosine) (.81-1.02 kg/l) 500,000 gallons fuel * 0.81 * 3.785 = 1,532,925 kg = 3,393,940 lb LH2 (.0785 kg/l) 500,000 gallons fuel * .0785 * 3.785 = 148,561 kg = 327,950 lb This is why rockets generally use LH2 for the upperstage. Not only is there a difference in ISP, there is an even larger difference in mass. RP-1 has its benefits as well. It is much more dense than LH2, isnt cryo, etc. Plus, we are talking two or three fuels. Not real fuels where you can use almost any fuel in the book.

The ability to build a liquid hydrogen upperstage and kersone lowerstage like a large number of rockets are built. A few things from nasa- "the taming of liquid hydrogen proved to be one of NASA's most significant technical achievements". "liquid hydrogen yields the highest specific impulse, or efficiency in relation to the amount of propellant consumed, of any known rocket propellant." Wow! It sounds like fuel types are a VERY important matter in rocketry. I suppose what i find funny is i've rarely heard people complain over CUSTOMIZATION options they arent forced to use. And this argument "it will be too hard". Do you guys realize how that makes you sound. Too hard???? You want a cookie?

Why would fuels scare people away? Most new people, it seems, are calling for realism. Which makes sense from a science, space & engineering perspective. I got into this game because "rockets". If there were something more realistic, i would have never played ksp. Point is, i wasnt drawn in by green people, planets, or lack of SPEED that comes with playing on scaled down planets. I accepted that stuff because the engineering and rockets. Its not cool. Its acceptable.

Dont even get me started on that. One positive aspect - SpaceX was selected and their plan does not use the SLS. So it dependes on their success with the Starship.

So, nasa awarded 1billion dollars to three companies developing lunar landers for the "Artemis" program today. The author of the article i read made an interesting point. According to NASA they need 1.357 trillion in funding through 2025 to successfully land on the moon. Im not sure if money is there folks. And while i love space, i must question if a moon landing is a priority in the unprecedented period of human history we are now experiencing. There is no doubt we are in a global recession and if economies dont open soon, it will be a global depression. We can always borrow the money, but we were borrowing the money to begin with. America always overspends what it takes in. https://www.yahoo.com/news/nasa-awards-1-billion-moon-205211416.html

I suppose it all depends on the success of ksp2. Many people are still now just discovering ksp. Ksp has always been one of those, obscure "hidden gems". It also took ksp a VERY long time to come to maturity. ksp2 needs the modders to be successful like ksp. If ksp loses all its modders it is done for because console players will have a smaller barrier for entry compared to pc gamers (harware cost) and are more likely to make the transition. And when i think about the price point, you would be buying a cheaper, still actively developed game with relatively recent dlc that is not available in ksp2. Not a bad deal. I wanted stock robotics for the longest time. Im not sure i can live without that in ksp2.

Im wondering if squad intends for ksp to compete with ksp2. Why else woud they be updating textures and still making improvments to the base game a decade later and after the announcement of a sequel? Maybe im wrong, but ive NEVER seen a studio go to the length squad has improving ksp. Also, from what ive seen on the forums, many ksp players are using really old hardware that simply wont run a modern game. Finally, from my understanding, ksp2 has no right to use any of the new textures or dlc's. That sounds like competition to me.